discover_capabilitiesBrowse Burs-IA capabilities. Known MCP endpoint: bursia_verify_mcp. Bounded need needing a lane: capability_triage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Optional public capability need to filter or contextualize discovery. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "query": "verify a public MCP server"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / query / descriptionAdded value: +"Optional public capability need to filter or contextualize discovery."Input schema / properties / query / maxLengthAdded value: +500Input schema / properties / query / minLengthAdded value: +1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Structured JSON result returned in structuredContent.",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no indication of what discovery yields, whether results are scoped, or how the optional query affects output, despite having no difficulty saying so.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very short and front-loaded, which is good, but the second and third sentences are telegraphic fragments ("Bounded need needing a lane") whose meaning is unclear rather than economical. Brevity here costs comprehension instead of buying it.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover safety. Still, the description never defines what a "capability" or a "lane" is, so an agent has only a partial mental model for when this tool is the right entry point.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single optional `query` param, and the description adds nothing about its syntax or effect. Baseline 3 applies when the schema fully documents the parameter and the prose does not enrich it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a verb and resource ("Browse Burs-IA capabilities") but "capabilities" is left undefined, so the agent cannot tell what objects are actually returned or enumerated. It gestures at sibling tools rather than describing the operation, leaving the core purpose only partially resolved.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The two fragments ("Known MCP endpoint: bursia_verify_mcp", "Bounded need needing a lane: capability_triage") imply routing to siblings under certain conditions, which is more than nothing. However the conditions are stated as cryptic nouns rather than explicit when/when-not criteria, so the agent must guess at the trigger.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.